In your support for attacking Syria, you rest your case by saying our enemies would feel “emboldened” and would reason “that U.S. threats are meaningless.”

America is the only country in the history of the world that has dropped two atomic bombs killing 200,000 people. These deaths were mostly caused by burns and radiation sickness.

The United States does not need its credibility card punched. I am against piling more misery upon a country that has and will continue to have plenty of misery.

Frank Taylor, Dallas

Risks will deter Assad

Chemical weapons pose huge risks to those using them. Harder to control, they can indiscriminately kill allies and the unaligned in their path, and their horrors can bring about adverse reaction against those using them, pressuring their supporters to distance themselves.

These risks are natural deterrents to their use. Why don’t those insisting on military intervention mention that there is already significant pressure on Assad not to use them again?

There are many influences lining up to drive America into military intervention but not for the popular reasons cited.

Brian Baldwin, Dallas

We can’t wimp out

The U.S. and President Obama are wimping out on this issue.

History is full of examples in which inaction just encouraged brutal, authoritarian governments. These include the Nanking Massacre and the sinking of the U.S. gunboat Panay (1937); the Italian attack on Ethiopia, which included use of poison gas (1935-1936); the Spanish civil war (1936-1939); the German annexation of the Czech Sudetenland (1938) and the annexation of the rest of Czechoslovakia; and many more.

Good intentions and a feeling that “it’s none of our business” or “there are no good guys in this” have never worked to prevent trouble from calling. There is a possibility that seriously degrading the Assad government’s ability to wage war on its own people would have a positive effect.

Davis hit the nail on the head when he wrote that the U.S. should let the Syrians sort out their own problem, then take care of the winner.

No matter what the U.S. does or does not do, it will not change their minds about us. I have spent time in that part of the world. They have been killing each other for centuries and are not going to stop.

If there was no oil in that region, the rest of the world would not care what is happening. It is said that the Middle East is the cradle of civilization, but they have not progressed one day since that time. It’s really unfortunate.

Ralph Hood, Denton

Syrian children innocent

Given what we know of the atrocities in Syria, how would we tell the children — not to even mention the women and men — that we are not coming?

Roger Summers, Arlington

‘Interests’ mean ‘oil’

Listening to the talking points of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on attacking Syria is the same old song and dance that we had over Iraq with little or no support from the international community. Look how great that war turned out. We destroyed Iraq and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, many women and children.

We don’t even know who the rebels are that we are supporting except that many of them are al-Qaeda operatives.

Kerry came out and said this is all about protecting our interests and the interests of Israel and Jordan. Of course, Kerry is referring to oil, or else we would send troops all over the world to stop atrocities.

The American people don’t want another war. We spoke when we voted for regime change. Obama has turned his back on his base.

Apart from his fiddling while Rome burns, the tactical element of surprise is lost and the awful Syrian regime has had time to hide or move every method of delivery of the chemical weapons used.

Obama has become a joke in the Arab world and he is rapidly becoming a joke around the globe. His fiddling during the Arab spring made the uprisings in Iran, Egypt, Sudan become things of the past and likely cost the lives of at least an American ambassador and his security detail.

Where is George Bush when we need him? We can only hope the Congress will vote down this ego-driven scheme. We pray for it.

Ray Tompkins, Oklahoma City

War destroys — I’d know

When I went to combat in Korea, I thought we were justified and was shocked when a fellow soldier commented “we should not be fighting in this war.” Now, when I think of the deaths of over 36,000 in Korea and so many others of us injured in mind and body, I don’t know.

I don’t understand people like Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war, advocating our deep involvement in another foreign war. I acknowledge that he has probably suffered from war more than I have, but evidently he wasn’t as aware of the death and injury of his comrades as I was as a combat infantryman.

Most people don’t realize the financial cost. Budget expert Linda Bilmes estimates the financial cost of providing Iraq and Afghanistan disability and services close to $1 trillion, with the total cost of these wars at $4 trillion to $6 trillion.

We don’t need more deaths and injuries from another foreign war, and cannot afford more debt.

Edward V. Harris, Hugo, Okla.

Let them kill each other

How is it that we citizens have more common sense on Syrian intervention than the White House and congressional leaders?

Syria has been around a long time, and it’s not because they are weak. They know how to survive and get payback. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe is correct in stating that any intervention could result in a bigger conflict.

Currently, the status quo in Syria is a win-win situation for us because the warring sides are killing each other off more so than limited strikes by us could achieve. Is it possible that these congressional leaders are set to gain financially by supporting the president’s reckless adventure?

Syria isn’t worth it. What did we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Nothing but dead soldiers. We got nothing!

Robert Richter, Seagoville

Focus on domestic issues

While the chemical attacks in Syria are certainly heinous acts of violence, there is absolutely no reason for the United States to become involved. Instead of being concerned about our image overseas, it is time to be more concerned with our image within our own country.

With an incomprehensible national debt, crushing poverty and unemployment, the bankruptcy of major cities, and massive cuts in national, state and local funding in our nation, it would be irresponsible and detrimental to our citizens for us to become embroiled in yet another war that has no possibility of success and possibly no end.

We should come first for a change, not a foreign country for which we have no responsibility in protecting.

Sydney Miles, McKinney

Simply opposing Obama

There comes a time when we must stop being the policeman of the world. I don’t want us to become entangled in Syria. If some missile strikes will stop atrocities there, fine, but I am doubtful.

What I am amazed at are the same people who waved the flag and called those of us who opposed going into Iraq names are now the loudest voices against involvement in Syria. What has changed? Maybe it’s the occupant of the White House that’s causing them to become doves.

I am skeptical we can impact the situation in Syria with missiles. I am willing to support a U.N.-led task force.

It is way past time the war-making powers of presidents are curtailed. Make Congress step up. If we are to be in a war, it needs to be declared openly, with both houses standing up and being counted.

Billy Kirby, Frisco

How are Syria, Iran different?

I am having a difficult time seeing the differences between the situations in Syria and Iran. Both oppress the freedom of their own people. One could cause a regional war, the other a regional arms race.

A response to either could be characterized as meddling in another nation’s business. And either response could be expensive, grow beyond original intentions, and may very well not change anything.

I hope that my congressman, Kenny Marchant, is not going to be against one response and for the other. But if he is, he might consider that one difference is: Iran threatens to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Syria uses them.

Don Unger, Irving

Kerry not convincing

Why has Secretary of State John Kerry’s impassioned presentations apparently failed to convince the American public of the need to respond militarily in Syria? Media analysts have offered many reasons: War-weary Americans. A trend to a more isolated, a more “America first” approach in the nation’s politics. Congressional representatives who oppose any initiative of the Obama administration and subsequently so influence their constituents.

Here’s another possible explanation. Could it also be Kerry’s patrician manner of speaking? It is the same rhetorical style that failed to connect with Americans in 2004. Kerry cannot do “Bubba talk.” It is not who he is. His manner and words may seem too aristocratic to persuade Americans that their opinions should be in accord with his.

Ed Kominski, Weatherford

Selective shock

*Editor's note: A correction for this letter will run on the letters panel Wednesday, Sept. 11. White phosphorous was used in the Lebanon and Gaza conflicts, not chemical weapons. -- Christy Robinson

No doubt the Bashar Assad is a brutal dictator and should be brought to the International Court for his crimes against his own people.

John Kerry declared that the killing of reportedly hundreds of people with toxic gas should “shock the conscience of the world.” Why didn’t the killing of more than 150,000 Syrians so far with plain old bullets and bombs shock the conscience of the world?

Why was the conscience of the world not shocked when Israel used chemical weapons in Lebanon (2006) and Gaza (2008)? Israel dropped more than a million cluster bombs on south Lebanon in the last few days before the ceasefire.

The use of millions of pounds of radioactive uranium oxide that leveled Fallujah is a crime against humanity. Where was the conscience of the civilized world at that time?

Our administration and the neoconservatives in Washington should learn from the mess we created in Iraq. We should work with other nations to find a peaceful solution to prevent an all-out war in the Middle East.